KIRIT Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr R.M. Daga, learned counsel for the applicants; and Mr M K Pathan, learned APP for respondent.

(2.) RULE, returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective learned counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the applicants who placed reliance upon ruling in State of Kerala v. Cherian1 in order to submit that in the present case, the State itself has admitted in their affidavit in reply that the alleged gambling was going on in the private premises of Agrawal Farm /Plantation at Surabardi, Nagpur, which was owned by applicant No.1 and since it was a private 1. AIR 1967 Kerala 106. premises, it cannot be construed as a public place or such place to which public would have access to it. Such premises cannot come within the mischief of penal section 12 (a) of the said Act. It appears that in the ruling cited above, in paragraph 2, it is observed that there can be no doubt that the compound where the accused were found gaming will not come within the meaning of the term" common gaming house" and that being so the conviction under section 8 is not maintainable. In another ruling Arambham vs. Manipur Administration2 it is observed that private house cannot be construed as a public place or public street.